One thing to remember about Missouri. We have passed numerous petition initiatives in the last few years, but our Republican legislature always has drastically changed them, so as to have no teeth, or outright got rid of them altogether. The ONLY way is a state Constitutional Amendment, and I don't see that passing anytime soon. I don't want to be negative, and I hope this group succeeds, but I am only cautiously optimistic on this one

Yep, in this state, the Republican legislature will kill anything not to their liking. I too, hope this group succeeds but in the state of Missouri.......who went for Romney and kept Todd Akin in there to run against McCaskill.. who thankfully won.

<quoted text>I am quite familiar with the world's major religions and their respective public views regarding homosexuality. You're the one arguing against the fact that there are religious groups who hold that homosexuality is a sin and an abomination before God. You're either being intentionally obtuse or your ignorance regarding the matter is glaring.<quoted text>You automatically assume that a relgious organization refusing to employ homosexuals is borne from bigotry and hatred, when it's simply a matter of adherence to traditional religious beliefs. That of course is the very essence of religious freedom, of which government has no power to prohibit under the 1st Amendment.

Boy, you couldn't be more wrong. Where did I argue the fact that they believe it? The only argument I have with them is when they try to foist their beliefs into secular law. And I don't assume their discrimination is from bigotry and hatred, I know it it. Just because they believe something is right, does not make it so. And what is with the last sentence? Where did anyone argue that the government is trying to prohibit them? And the petition under discussion specifically excludes religious organizations from having to follow it. There is that same old straw-man I talked about before. Stick to facts. They may adhere to any belief they want, so long as they don't try to make me and others live by their belief.

This entire is a minefield full of fuzzy definitions causing explosive misunderstandings.

If you mean "church" the implications, both legal and social< are quite different than those if you mean "a church-run business", or "a business run for religious reasons", or "a business run by religious people".

A "church" is one kind of non-profit; a charity is another, a charitable business is yet another; each with their distinct legal relationship to the Government and the general Citizenry.

The above is not "word games".

Now that I know specifically what you mean, I can discuss your other assertion.

Boy, you couldn't be more wrong. Where did I argue the fact that they believe it?

Post # 12.

The only argument I have with them is when they try to foist their beliefs into secular law.

But theyre not trying to foist their beliefs into secular law. Its the homosexual crowd that is pushing the petition and seeking to foist THEIR beliefs into secular law.

If youre going to be consistent, you should be opposing the petition.

And I don't assume their discrimination is from bigotry and hatred, I know it it.

You assumption is false, and has no basis in reality.

Just because they believe something is right, does not make it so.

It really doesnt matter whether you think what they believe is right or wrong. What matters is the 1st Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. Government is barred from enacting prohibitions of the free exercise of religion such as the one proposed by the petition.

And what is with the last sentence? Where did anyone argue that the government is trying to prohibit them?

You tacitly made that argument in posts # 4 and 11.

And the petition under discussion specifically excludes religious organizations from having to follow it.

And what about the religious beliefs of the owner of a private company? Must his right to not employ homosexuals as the exercise of religious liberties be subject to unlawful government prohibition? I dont think so.

Why would a homosexual want to work for someone who didnt want him and was forced to hire him? Doesnt sound at all like a pleasant working atmosphere.

They may adhere to any belief they want, so long as they don't try to make me and others live by their belief.

Religious people arent doing that, but thats precisely what the proposed law would require! It would prohibit every business owner from his right to the free exercise of his religion, and instead be forced to live by the beliefs of homosexuals.

Your position is fraught with inconsistency to the point of hypocrisy. You are obviously suffering from a severe case of cognitive dissonance.

<quoted text>I've made my position abundantly clear. If you want to play stupid, go ahead. I'm here for meaningful conversation and I don't care to play sandbox with you.

I feel the reverse is true.

Until you clarified, I had to assume that by "religious organizations" you could mean the "Roman Catholic Church", "Catholic Charities" and "Catholic Hospitals, Inc." (very distinct legal entities) as one great monolith.

I had no way of knowing whether or not you were one of those who didn't understand the differences between them.

You've clarified that you understand that churches are not the same as these other types of organizations.

So, how are churches being limited by Government? A couple of links to specific cases would make discussion far more clear and informative.

You need to review a bit. Post 12 had to do with the moral turpitude of inter-racial marriage. And yet, you respond to my question about belief concerning Marriage Equality. Two totally different posts.<quoted text>

But theyre not trying to foist their beliefs into secular law. Its the homosexual crowd that is pushing the petition and seeking to foist THEIR beliefs into secular law.If youre going to be consistent, you should be opposing the petition.

We are not trying to foist anything on you. If Marriage Equality wins, you are not required to marry a person of the same sex, and you are not required to agree with it. Just don't interfere with it. But yet, the religious folks are attempting to infringe on our rights, or there would not be a move to amend Constitutions in order to marginalize us.<quoted text>

You assumption is false, and has no basis in reality.

My reality is where I draw my conclusions, and I know hate and bigotry when it affects me. I have been a victim of it, from individuals, churches,and businesses.<quoted text>

It really doesnt matter whether you think what they believe is right or wrong. What matters is the 1st Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. Government is barred from enacting prohibitions of the free exercise of religion such as the one proposed by the petition.<quoted text>

What matters is how that freedom of religion is expressed. When it becomes action to curb or infringe my, or anyone's rights, then the religious freedom is being abused.

You tacitly made that argument in posts # 4 and 11.<quoted text>

The abuse of the religious freedom issue is when the government is supposed to step in.

And what about the religious beliefs of the owner of a private company? Must his right to not employ homosexuals as the exercise of religious liberties be subject to unlawful government prohibition? I dont think so.Why would a homosexual want to work for someone who didnt want him and was forced to hire him? Doesnt sound at all like a pleasant working atmosphere.<quoted text>

Religious people arent doing that, but thats precisely what the proposed law would require! It would prohibit every business owner from his right to the free exercise of his religion, and instead be forced to live by the beliefs of homosexuals.

As I said, the government is supposed to step in when the freedom of religion is abused. As they did in the Civil Rights case. Religions used the bible to support their bigotry, and the government called a halt to it. Religion can not be used to back up the negative traits of hatred and bigotry. Gay people do no one any harm by loving and demonstrating that love. And denying employment based on that trait is as bad as denying employment because of sex, national origin, color, or any other innate characteristic.

Your position is fraught with inconsistency to the point of hypocrisy. You are obviously suffering from a severe case of cognitive dissonance.

My positions are not fraught with inconsistency, but your understanding and lack of empathy for others and of the human condition is. Of course that is just a by-product of your religion and your fear.

<quoted text>Post # 12.<quoted text>But theyre not trying to foist their beliefs into secular law. Its the homosexual crowd that is pushing the petition and seeking to foist THEIR beliefs into secular law.If youre going to be consistent, you should be opposing the petition.<quoted text>You assumption is false, and has no basis in reality.<quoted text>It really doesnt matter whether you think what they believe is right or wrong. What matters is the 1st Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. Government is barred from enacting prohibitions of the free exercise of religion such as the one proposed by the petition.<quoted text>You tacitly made that argument in posts # 4 and 11.<quoted text>And what about the religious beliefs of the owner of a private company? Must his right to not employ homosexuals as the exercise of religious liberties be subject to unlawful government prohibition? I dont think so.Why would a homosexual want to work for someone who didnt want him and was forced to hire him? Doesnt sound at all like a pleasant working atmosphere.<quoted text>Religious people arent doing that, but thats precisely what the proposed law would require! It would prohibit every business owner from his right to the free exercise of his religion, and instead be forced to live by the beliefs of homosexuals.Your position is fraught with inconsistency to the point of hypocrisy. You are obviously suffering from a severe case of cognitive dissonance.

You'll have to struggle through my previous post. I'm not jet used to the the way to divide up the statements in order to reply to each portion.

The proposed law would indeed force a large portion of the population to accept and condone homosexual behavior against their religious beliefs. Whether a private business is a religious organization or is run by someone with religious beliefs, the proposed law would clearly violate their God-given religious freedom.

How can you possibly claim the law isnt an attack on religious liberties when it would force a Church, for example, to hire a homosexual as Pastor, even though their religious beliefs have always condemned homosexual behavior, and anyone living in open sin is disqualified from holding such a position?

If Marriage Equality wins, you are not required to marry a person of the same sex, and you are not required to agree with it. Just don't interfere with it.

The proposed law goes far, far beyond that. It actually forces businesses to employ people who are engaged in behavior that every major world religion recognizes as sinful and an abomination before God. A religious organization or a private business owned by a person with religious convictions against homosexual behavior cant simply disagree with it and not interfere. He will be forced by government to violate his religious convictions and accept and condone such behavior in his own business or organization.

But yet, the religious folks are attempting to infringe on our rights, or there would not be a move to amend Constitutions in order to marginalize us.

The movement to amend the Constitution is simply to codify what has always been held, that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Whatever a homosexual relationship is, it's not marriage any more than taking a bath is baptism.

I am curious though, what rights of yours are religious folks infringing by practicing the tenets of their religion?

My reality is where I draw my conclusions, and I know hate and bigotry when it affects me.

You perception does not necessarily equal reality. And if youve been the victim of bigotry and hatred by someone in the religious community, thats hardly an indictment upon all religion, nor are you correct in extrapolating the motives of one person in a very large group to the entire group as a whole.

The abuse of the religious freedom issue is when the government is supposed to step in.

You made this claim a number of times in your post, yet you never specified what constitutes an abuse of religious freedom as it relates to homosexual behavior.

Are you claiming that the religious teaching that homosexual behavior is deviant, sinful and an abomination before God is an abuse of religious freedom? If so, do you realize that the logical end of your argument results in the absurd position that religions would not longer be able to speak out against any sinful behavior because it might be seen by some as an abuse of religious freedom?

I think the bottom line here is that the goal of the homosexual agenda is to force society to accept and condone a behavior that many find repugnant. Youre free to engage in homosexual behavior and live a homosexual lifestyle. Yet, with that comes the disdain of society. They are two sides of the same coin.

You should be grateful that you can live without fear in this country. In many nations around the world youd be put to death for engaging in homosexual activity.

<quoted text>...How can you possibly claim the law isnt an attack on religious liberties when it would force a Church, for example, to hire a homosexual as Pastor, even though their religious beliefs have always condemned homosexual behavior, and anyone living in open sin is disqualified from holding such a position?

Feel free to provide an example, with a link, of an anti-discrimination law that does this anywhere in the United States.

guest wrote:

<quoted text>The proposed law goes far, far beyond that. It actually forces businesses to employ people who are engaged in behavior that every major world religion recognizes as sinful and an abomination before God.

Now you're mixing church organizations with businesses. Two separate things. If the business obtains a license from the government and is open to the public, it must abide by anti-discrimination laws. If it is truly a private club or organization, it can discriminate as it sees fit.

guest wrote:

<quoted text>A religious organization or a private business owned by a person with religious convictions against homosexual behavior cant simply disagree with it and not interfere. He will be forced by government to violate his religious convictions and accept and condone such behavior in his own business or organization.

Again, you're conflating two separate notions. Businesses (private or public) that are open to the public cannot discriminate against citizens. Purely religious organizations like churches are not subject to the same restrictions. They are free to discriminate, and do so often.

guest wrote:

<quoted text>The movement to amend the Constitution is simply to codify what has always been held, that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Whatever a homosexual relationship is, it's not marriage any more than taking a bath is baptism.

That's only your opinion. Clearly, the nation is moving away from that idea, as now 9 states and the District of Columbia recognize the right of same-sex couples to obtain a civil marriage.

There remains no rational basis for denying the right to obtain a civil marriage solely because of the gender of the partners.

All arguments in opposition are illogical, irrational, or based on ignorance, animus, fear, or religious superstition or myth.

Feel free to provide an example, with a link, of an anti-discrimination law that does this anywhere in the United States.

The proposed law that is the topic of this thread would do exactly that.

Now you're mixing church organizations with businesses.

The issue is the free exercise of religion. A religious private business owner has every bit as much right to refuse employment to homosexuals, or prostitutes, or thieves, or drunkards, as does a religious organization. Read the 1st Amendment.

Besides that, a business owner can refuse employment to anyone whom he damn well pleases. Take a look at Hooters for example. They dont employ any male servers, a very clear case of sex discrimination, yet they have every right to hire only women with big breasts. Its called freedom.

Businesses (private or public) that are open to the public cannot discriminate against citizens.

Yes they can. Private businesses have every bit as much right to refuse to allow anyone onto their property just as you have every right to refuse anyone into your home, for any reason whatsoever. Again, its called freedom.

What pisses you off is the fact that society regards homosexual behavior as perverted and deviant. You so badly desire acceptance and condonation of your lifestyle that youre pushing government to violate the inalienable rights of anyone who refuses. Its the height of selfishness.

Live and let live. If you want to be homosexual, fine. If I own a business and dont want to hire you, fine.

The anti-gay nutball crowd is indeed trying to shove their rotten stupidity down everyone else's throats.

It's the homosexual crowd that is pushing their agenda down the throats of society. It's the homosexual crowd circulating the petition hoping to enact legislation that would deny the religious liberties of anyone who refuses to accept and condone homosexual behavior.

As I said before, you are free in this country to engage in homosexual behavior. However, doing so has consequences. Among them is receiving the disdain of society. You're not going to change that by attempting to violate religious liberties.

<quoted text>It's the homosexual crowd that is pushing their agenda down the throats of society. It's the homosexual crowd circulating the petition hoping to enact legislation that would deny the religious liberties of anyone who refuses to accept and condone homosexual behavior.As I said before, you are free in this country to engage in homosexual behavior. However, doing so has consequences. Among them is receiving the disdain of society. You're not going to change that by attempting to violate religious liberties.

How are "religious liberties" violated?

There are actually NO "religious liberties" because the Government is prohibited from Legislating about religion.

Let's review.

FREEDOM is innate and absolute.

RIGHTS are those specific aspects of FREEDOM which are guaranteed and protected by Government as part of it's Constitutional mandate.

LIBERTIES are aspects of FREEDOM wherein the Social Contract deals with those expressions of innate FREEDOM or guaranteed RIGHTS that inevitably come into conflict with those expressions by others.

As absolute sovereigns, our individual FREEDOM is absolute. This results in conflicts. These are resolved by treaties. The first of which is the Constitution of the United States of America. One aspect of this prime treaty is that a large coalition of sovereign Citizens may NOT impose their will upon, nor restrict the FREEDOM of a smaller coalition or individual, either directly or using Government as their agent, without a clear and rational cause for doing so.

Consistently, the Courts sitting in Equity have determined that "tradition" does not qualify as rational cause for abridging the FREEDOM of fellow sovereign Citizens, nor to limit their Equal Access and Protection of the Law, and of the Government. They have further Found and Ruled, that essentially sectarian religious criteria for participation or access may not be imposed upon fellow sovereign Citizens directly, nor through the agency of Government, outside the immediate sphere of sectarian religion itself.

This of course, and most importantly for the Public welfare, protects the various sectarian religions from each other as well.

Our ancestors knew all too well the horrors of sectarian religious conflict.

You would be well advised to review this, or merely consult current events.

Ive made my position abundantly clear. Like I told you before, if you want to play stupid, go ahead. Im not going to play sandbox with you.

There are actually NO "religious liberties" because the Government is prohibited from Legislating about religion.

Thats makes no sense. Our religious liberties are so important that government is prevented from enacting any legislation that would abrogate them. Thats what the 1st Amendment is all about.

FREEDOM is innate and absolute.

Thats not correct. Liberty is granted to us by God, and it is not absolute. It has limits. My freedom does not include me denying yours.

RIGHTS are those specific aspects of FREEDOM which are guaranteed and protected by Government as part of its Constitutional mandate.

Thats not correct either. Again, rights come from God. It is true that governments are instituted among men to secure our God-given rights, as is stated specifically in the Declaration of Independence.

LIBERTIES are aspects of FREEDOM wherein the Social Contract deals with those expressions of innate FREEDOM or guaranteed RIGHTS that inevitably come into conflict with those expressions by others.

Thats a bunch of gobbledygook that really says nothing. There is no such thing as a social contract. All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. Government is instituted to secure those rights.

As absolute sovereigns, our individual FREEDOM is absolute. This results in conflicts. These are resolved by treaties. The first of which is the Constitution of the United States of America.

First of all, we are not absolute sovereigns, nor is our freedom absolute. And the U.S. Constitution is not a treaty, its a grant of very specific and limited power from the people and the states to the federal government.

One aspect of this prime treaty is that a large coalition of sovereign Citizens may NOT impose their will upon, nor restrict the FREEDOM of a smaller coalition or individual, either directly or using Government as their agent, without a clear and rational cause for doing so.

You are seriously confused. The U.S. Constitution charges the federal government, among other things, with securing the God-given rights each citizen is endowed with. The general idea is not to resolve disputes between citizens, but rather to prohibit the powers of government from abrogating the inherent rights of the people.

Consistently, the Courts sitting in Equity have determined that "tradition" does not qualify as rational cause for abridging the FREEDOM of fellow sovereign Citizens

Wow, youre tossing around terms of which you obviously have no knowledge of. Courts of Equity have nothing to do with inherent rights that individuals possess at law. Stop trying to play lawyer. Your idiocy is apparent to those of us who know the law.

Our ancestors knew all too well the horrors of sectarian religious conflict.

No, they knew too well the dangers of a tyrannical government. Thats why they bound the powers of government with the chains of the Constitution.

You would be well advised to review this, or merely consult current events.

ROFLAMO! Listen sonny, Ive studied constitutional law for over 30 years. Youre like an ignorant 3rd grader errantly explaining propulsion to a rocket scientist.

Run along little one. Leave the discussion to those of us who are learned in these matters.

<quoted text>Ive made my position abundantly clear. Like I told you before, if you want to play stupid, go ahead. Im not going to play sandbox with you.<quoted text>Thats makes no sense. Our religious liberties are so important that government is prevented from enacting any legislation that would abrogate them. Thats what the 1st Amendment is all about.<quoted text>Thats not correct. Liberty is granted to us by God, and it is not absolute. It has limits. My freedom does not include me denying yours.<quoted text>Thats not correct either. Again, rights come from God. It is true that governments are instituted among men to secure our God-given rights, as is stated specifically in the Declaration of Independence.<quoted text>Thats a bunch of gobbledygook that really says nothing. There is no such thing as a social contract. All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. Government is instituted to secure those rights.<quoted text>First of all, we are not absolute sovereigns, nor is our freedom absolute. And the U.S. Constitution is not a treaty, its a grant of very specific and limited power from the people and the states to the federal government.<quoted text>You are seriously confused. The U.S. Constitution charges the federal government, among other things, with securing the God-given rights each citizen is endowed with. The general idea is not to resolve disputes between citizens, but rather to prohibit the powers of government from abrogating the inherent rights of the people.<quoted text>Wow, youre tossing around terms of which you obviously have no knowledge of. Courts of Equity have nothing to do with inherent rights that individuals possess at law. Stop trying to play lawyer. Your idiocy is apparent to those of us who know the law.<quoted text>No, they knew too well the dangers of a tyrannical government. Thats why they bound the powers of government with the chains of the Constitution.<quoted text>ROFLAMO! Listen sonny, Ive studied constitutional law for over 30 years. Youre like an ignorant 3rd grader errantly explaining propulsion to a rocket scientist.Run along little one. Leave the discussion to those of us who are learned in these matters.

You consistently confuse colloquial usage with the legal definition of terms, especially the definitions in the minds of our founders.

For example, the legal terms: "freedoms", "rights" and "liberties" ARE NOT synonyms.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.